MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Subcommittee on Government Affairs
Seventy-First Session
March 19, 2001
The Subcommittee on Government Affairswas called to order at 9:12 a.m., on Monday, March 19, 2001. Chairman Vivian Freeman presided in Room 3143 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Vivian Freeman
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. Harry Mortenson
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Kathy McClain, Assemblywoman District 15
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Eileen O’Grady, Committee Counsel
Dave Ziegler, Committee Policy Analyst
Cheryl Meyers, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Las Vegas, Nevada
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), Carson City, Nevada
Assembly Bill 131: Authorizes governing body of city or county to adopt ordinances for preservation of neighborhoods. (BDR 22-149)
Assemblywoman Kathy McClain introduced an amendment to A.B. 131. The amendment would effectively disassemble A.B. 131 and would move the provision from NRS Chapter 278 to NRS Chapter 244 and would amend the bill as a whole. The new language would be in NRS 244.3601 inclusive. Chairman Freeman asked Ms. McClain if she would explain the differences between the two chapters.
Ms. McClain explained NRS 278 was a planning and zoning chapter. The language was too broad in NRS 278 and the decision had been to place the amendment under a health and safety chapter. Because they were chartered, cities had more leeway and authority than counties in passing ordinances to handle problems such as “crack houses,” slum landlords, housing falling apart, apartment complexes with substandard living conditions, etc. Ms. McClain stated her special interest was for the counties to have the ability to remove the really dangerous situations such as dilapidated buildings and “crack houses.” Counties were an extension of the state government, she indicated, and when the NRS was interpreted by their district attorneys there had been questions about expressed authority. A.B. 131, incorporated into NRS 244.3601, would allow counties to act with the same authority given to most cities.
Assemblyman Mortenson stated he had listened very carefully to all of the previous testimony regarding the issues. He claimed every complaint he had heard during testimony seemed to have a way to be resolved. Perhaps the corrections took longer and were not handled as efficiently; however, the problems did get resolved. He indicated he had a problem with a vacant structure near his house in Las Vegas with dangerous rebar sticking through the ground. He contacted the county and the county cleared and cleaned the property immediately. If there was a health problem the health departments were located in all counties and would address those problems. He stated the local police had harassed a “crack house” near his neighborhood until the people finally gave up and left the property. He opined there seemed to be a department that could handle every situation that Ms. McClain posed without introducing new language and legislation. Mr. Mortenson stated that while it may sometimes be inconvenient, the neighborhoods deserved protection from government intrusion in everyday life.
Ms. McClain responded the amendment addressed further changes to NRS 244 because over the years the Legislature had set up barriers and obstacles to get things done. She considered Mr. Mortenson’s recalled experiences unusual instead of customary. The normal course of action could involve a landlord who would protest the county clearing the lot surrounding the vacant house and it could take years to get compliance. She stated her neighborhood had a “crack house” that had been there for over two years due to court system delays. The language change in NRS 244 would remove some of the stringent timelines and notifications. The local government would be responsible to determine what was best for the community. Her entire district was an unincorporated area and she had found numerous ordinances that could be passed in a city and not in her county to handle the types of problems discussed. The objective of the changed language was to enable the counties to mirror what the cities were allowed to accomplish. Ms. McClain stated the need to have a seamless structure across the counties and cities with ordinances and enforcement power.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked Ms. McClain to explain the language removal in NRS 244.3601, Paragraph 1, concerning the three-person board. She asked if the language should identify “reasonable” in the same paragraph. Ms. McClain stated in NRS 244.3601 she had inserted “housing codes” because housing codes were different than building codes. Housing codes took into account very minimal standards such as health and safety. Currently there were personnel who enforced building codes, zoning ordinances and health regulations without having to obtain the approval of a three-person board. Ms. McClain stated she felt the idea of approval of three people to authorize removing a dangerous situation was unnecessary and time consuming. “Reasonable notice” could be defined as “reasonable” for a reasonable and prudent person. Ms. Gibbons asked if “housing codes” had been defined somewhere in the statutes. She wondered if “reasonable” was defined as more or less than the 72 hours notice. She asked if language inserted in NRS 244.3603, Section 2, removed the lien and inserted a special assessment in that section and in NRS 244.3605.
Ms. McClain stated in NRS 244.3601, Section 2, she had inserted “and including, when necessary, the costs incurred for the relocation of the tenants.” There had been situations in the past when an apartment complex that was substandard and unlivable was cited for multiple violations. She explained when violations were cited, multiple families had to leave the premises with no other place to locate. She stated it would be appropriate to provide funds through a special assessment on the property to include the relocation of tenants. The special assessment was effectively the same as a lien; however, it would be billed on the owner’s tax bill every year instead of remaining on the property indefinitely.
In NRS 244.3603, Paragraph 3, relating to chronic nuisances, the phrase related to relocating tenants was inserted again. If the court found a chronic nuisance existed, the special assessment could be ordered immediately. Section 5 defined “chronic nuisance” and Ms. McClain had changed the language in Section a, Subsection 2, to read “any 90 day period” instead of “any 30 day period.” She stated Section 5, Subsection b(3) had been added to read “violations of housing, building, or other codes regulating the health and safety of occupants” to add the necessary language to enforce health codes. Other changes to the statutes were covered in Exhibit C and Ms. McClain defined the language changed and the omissions.
Chairman Freeman discussed the bill she had introduced last session that dealt with nuisances in a community. She indicated living in an unincorporated area, such as Ms. McClain, there tended to be a different perspective on problems and how they were viewed. The Legislature could write bills to help situations such as those mentioned; however, the funding mechanisms had to be in place to enforce them. She mentioned that absentee landlords were a problem in most communities and no one forced the landlords to have the responsibility to take care of their properties. Ms. McClain’s bill, she noted, did not change any rules or regulations in cities such as Reno, Las Vegas, and Henderson. She asked if her interpretation was correct on that issue. Ms. McClain stated the amendment would not help cities and the statute only related to counties. Cities had city charters and had more leeway on the definition of nuisances, etc.
Assemblywoman Gibbons asked if the housing and building codes changed from county to county. Ms. McClain stated she knew Clark County used the Uniform Building Code, a national standard, and she believed that code was used in most counties. A Uniform Housing Code existed that was slightly different than the building code and defined health, safety and quality of life standards. She stated Clark County did not use that code. Ms. Gibbons asked if Ms. McClain would feel comfortable defining the code in the bill. Ms. McClain stated she believed the Uniform Building Code was defined in the Nevada Revised Statutes.
Carole Vilardo, President, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke on behalf of the revised A.B. 131. She had no concerns with the new bill. However, she noted in Section 1 of NRS 244.3601 the “reasonable notice” needed to be in writing for the protection of the resident and the county. Some of the areas in Las Vegas Ms. McClain had discussed had absentee landlords. When the condition was serious on a property a “reasonable notice” involved both a timeframe as well as how the notification was given. If the notice was in writing, there was official notice. If the responses or actions from the owner were not forthcoming when the letter stated, the county would have the ability to act faster. Ms. Freeman asked if Ms. Vilardo had an opinion regarding the change from a 30- day period to a 90-day period. Ms. Freeman had suggested a compromise of 60 days. Ms. Vilardo was comfortable with the 90-day period because there could be 3 or 4 totally different instances or incidences that were not the same as the prior issue. There were times when the landlord had circumstances happen out of their control and she felt the timeframe was reasonable.
Lucille Lusk, Co-Chairman, Nevada Concerned Citizens, Las Vegas, Nevada, had not had the opportunity to read and digest the new amendment. Clearly the current proposal, she stated, was better than the original. Her initial concern was over the use of “reasonable notice” without any specificity and without a requirement in writing. She was also concerned about the inclusion of costs for relocating tenants. Ms. Lusk indicated the landlord was not always at fault for all of the associated problems on the property. Sometimes the person was struggling very hard to make the payments and did not always have the funds to abate the problems. To add the cost of relocating tenants initially seemed inappropriate to her. She asked if the subcommittee would allow the public to have some time to digest the new bill before moving the bill out of the subcommittee. Ms. Freeman stated the committee had not decided on anything and asked Ms. McClain to consider the suggestions presented and return to the subcommittee with the changes.
Mr. Mortensen divulged to Ms. McClain the new bill was a vast improvement on the previous draft. He asked if the lien language was removed from the statute and the “special assessment” language was added, would the assessment pass on to a new owner if the property sold. Ms. McClain stated the new owner would not be responsible for the assessment, as it would surely be handled before the sale of the property. Ms. Vilardo stated if the assessment was attached to the property tax bill, before the owner could sell there would have to be an agreement for someone to pay the property taxes. Title companies were responsible for researching properties and the potential owner would be advised of the liabilities on the property.
Ms. Gibbons asked Ms. McClain if Section 5, Subsection b, needed to be revised to add “controlled substance” language to include “crack houses.” Ms. McClain stated she thought there was another statute, NRS 244.360, which referred to drug arrests. She added the committee’s suggestion of “reasonable written notice” was acceptable to her. Ms. Freeman asked about including specificity of written notice mentioned by Ms. Lusk. Ms. McClain stated the language was broad intentionally so that ordinances could be written by individual counties.
Robert S. Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), commented the work done on the bill was satisfactory to his organization. NACO had been working towards parity and uniformity between cities and counties. He indicated he would work with the sponsor of the bill to support the amendment and take care of any concerns his organization may have.
Ms. Freeman asked Ms. McClain how she would like the subcommittee to proceed. Ms. McClain stated she would change the amendment to “reasonable written notice”, and would check on NRS 453.096-101 for language to be included in the bill.
Ms. Gibbons evaluated the bill needed to go back to bill drafting for the suggested changes. She recommended an amend and do pass back to the full committee. Mr. Mortenson wanted to give the public the extra time to review the bill and did not feel inclined to second the amend and do pass recommendation back to committee. Ms. Freeman suggested Mr. Mortenson could spend some time with Ms. McClain indicating his concerns. She did not feel another subcommittee meeting was necessary. Mr. Mortenson agreed.
Chairman Freeman seeing no further business before the committee adjourned the meeting at 9:50 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cheryl Meyers
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
____________________________________________
Assemblywoman Vivian Freeman, Vice Chairman
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Douglas Bache, Chairman
DATE: